The SportsWire

SMU

2026 · Last game: week 5 vs Boston College · bye in week 6

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:56 PM CT

Next up projections

vs Virginia

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · Gerald J. Ford Stadium (University Park) · Virginia (FBS, ACC)

Our call: SMU by 6.9Lean

All three models favor SMU. The line, shown for comparison only, has SMU by 7.5.

The average of SP+, Elo and Our model; the line is left out and kept as a benchmark. Toss-up under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 and over. More ›

Game page: vs Virginia ›

Regression watch: Flattered last game: the 9-point win ran 8 points ahead of the play. In a 2022–25 study, teams flattered by more than 7 fell about 3 points short of their season form the next game. More ›

Schedule: Played the 95th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -7.1); 42nd-toughest remaining (+6.2). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
  • Week 1 at Florida State (+7.9)
  • Week 2 vs UC Davis (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 3 at Louisville (+9.8)
  • Week 4 vs Missouri State (-15.9)
  • Week 5 vs Boston College (-4.4)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 vs Virginia (+3.6)
  • Week 8 vs California (-0.6)
  • Week 9 at Syracuse (-0.3)
  • Week 10 vs Virginia Tech (+8.0)
  • Week 11 vs Wake Forest (+8.9)
  • Week 12 at Notre Dame (+31.7)
  • Week 13 at Stanford (-7.6)

Each opponent's rating from our model's week 7 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 6. Experimental, like the Our model card.

Series: SMU leads 1–0 · last: SMU 33–7, 2024

Series history 1 meeting since 2024
  • All-time: SMU leads 1–0 (1 meeting since 2024)
  • Last meeting: SMU 33–7, 2024, Scott Stadium
  • Streak: none
  • At Gerald J. Ford Stadium: first meeting at Gerald J. Ford Stadium
  • Biggest margins: SMU 33–7 (2024) · Virginia has not won
  • Since 2000: SMU leads 1–0 (1 meeting)
SeasonResultSite
2024SMU 33–7Scott Stadium
RatingSMUVirginia
SP+ +12.8 #26 +8.5 #44
Elo 1689 1592

Projected margin for SMU · three models and the line, side by side

SP+
+6.8
SMU +12.8 vs Virginia +8.5
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+6.4
SMU 1689 vs Virginia 1592
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
+7.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
+7.4
SMU +8.5 vs Virginia +3.6
prior 55%
avg miss 11.8
closest 14/40
How to read this
  • SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
  • Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
  • The line is the pregame line, the margin the market expected, shown from SMU's side. It is not one of the models: it is shown for comparison only, as the benchmark the models and Our call are measured against.
  • Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
  • In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (SMU); the line already includes the market's own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
  • "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model); the line, a benchmark, shows its average miss only. Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
  • Our call, above the cards, is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. The pregame line is left out of it and kept as a benchmark to measure it against. Toss-up means the average is under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 or more. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
  • Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
  • After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model and the line against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not (the line, a benchmark, gets no mark), and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present, never the line (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring of SP+ and Elo, where a tie credits both.
  • Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›

Efficiency matchup · season to date · SMU 5 games, Virginia 6 games

Edge: SMU wins 4 of 5

SMU moves the ball better, stops plays better, is more disruptive and has the edge on big plays. Virginia allows fewer big plays.

SMUlonger bar = betterVirginia

Run game, head to head · season to date

SMU's runs work 45% of the time; Virginia's run defense allows 42%. Virginia's runs work 50% of the time; SMU's run defense allows 43%.

More numbers
MeasureSMUVirginiaEdge
Off. success rate49.8%47.9%SMU
Off. explosiveness1.261.12SMU
Def. success rate allowed37.0%39.5%SMU
Def. explosiveness allowed1.421.17Virginia
Havoc created21.6%17.7%SMU
  • Run game, success rate: SMU offense 45.5% · Virginia defense allows 41.5% · edge: even
  • Run game, success rate: Virginia offense 49.7% · SMU defense allows 43.3% · edge: Virginia
  • Run game, PPA per play: SMU offense +0.02 · Virginia defense allows +0.11 · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Virginia offense +0.23 · SMU defense allows +0.09 · edge: Virginia
  • Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.

How to read this

  • Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
  • The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 43%, PPA per play +0.08, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
  • In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
  • Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
  • These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
  • Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›

Injuries AI-assisted 1

Gathered by an AI model from public reporting, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources.

"AI-assisted" means gathered by an AI model from public reporting. When a conference publishes an official availability list for SMU's game (the SEC, Big Ten and ACC do, for conference games), this section shows that instead, labeled "Official report". More ›

  • Ira Singleton IV DEinjuryOut
    Noted Sat Oct 3, 9:00 AM CT.
    ACC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 3, 9:00 AM CT / 10:00 AM ET, for Boston College at SMU, Sat Oct 3. Reporting: Expected to be out for the year.
    Sources (2): [1] [2] · as of Sat Oct 3, 9:00 AM CT / 10:00 AM ET

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 12

Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources. Beat coverage checked Tue Oct 13, 7:30 PM CT.

1 entry about games now final not shown.

Score and result

SMU 25, Boston College 16W

Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›

Projected: SP+ +20.1 ✓ · Elo +15.3 ✓ · Our model +18.1 ✓ · the line (benchmark) +21.0 · actual +9 · Closest: Elo

SMU was as low as 28% and won SMU was as low as 28% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 25–16
  1. Q1 1:47 · 1st & 10 · 60% → 28%
    (01:47) No Huddle-Shotgun #10 M.McKenzie pass complete deep left to #23 E.Dickens caught at SMU18, for 43 yards to the SMU00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 01:41, 1ST DOWN #99 L.Lombardo kick attempt good (H: #96 B.LaFollette, LS: #49 C.Crook)
  2. Q1 1:35 · 1st & 10 · 28% → 54%
    (01:35) No Huddle-Shotgun #7 K.Jennings pass complete short left to #2 J.Hale caught at SMU21, for 8 yards to the SMU25 (#2 K.Price)
  3. Q2 10:04 · 3rd & 4 · 57% → 74%
    (10:04) Shotgun #7 K.Jennings rush right for 4 yards gain to the BC00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 10:05 #97 B.Baird kick attempt good (H: #43 W.McSparron, LS: #48 M.Tribbett)

Home at Gerald J. Ford Stadium · Sat Oct 3, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · vs Boston College (FBS, ACC)

Opponent for every game-level number: Boston College (FBS, ACC).

Verdict

The scoreboard flattered SMU: the +9 margin ran 8 points ahead of the +1 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.08 vs +0.06, success rate 36% vs 40%) (Boston College turned it over once).

The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›

Efficiency

Even game split 2–2

SMU got more from each play and was more disruptive. Boston College moved the ball better and hit the bigger plays.

SMUlonger bar = betterBoston College
More numbers

SMU ran 64 plays, Boston College 65. Each number is that team's offense; Boston College's column is also what SMU's defense allowed.

MeasureSMUBoston CollegeEdge
PPA / play+0.08+0.06SMU
Total PPA+4.9+3.6SMU
Success rate35.9%40.0%Boston College
Explosiveness1.381.60Boston College
Havoc created15.4%14.3%SMU
  • Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.

How to read this

  • The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
  • A check marks the better side of a row. The line above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
  • Metrics explained ›
Top performers

SMU players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.

Passing

None.

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Kevin Jennings QB 29% +2.1 +0.23
Jalen Cooper WR 3% +1.7 +1.66
Kendrick Raphael RB 48% +1.2 +0.08
Derrick McFall WR 16% -0.9 -0.18

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Derrick McFall WR 13% +2.5 +0.62
Jalen Cooper WR 19% +1.5 +0.25
Yannick Smith WR 23% +1.4 +0.20
Yamir Knight WR 10% +0.2 +0.08
By play type
MeasureSMUBoston CollegeEdge
Rushing PPA+0.02+0.01SMU
Rushing success29.0%44.8%Boston College
Passing PPA+0.10+0.10SMU
Passing success41.9%34.3%SMU
Standard downs PPA+0.20-0.15SMU
Standard downs success45.7%46.2%Boston College
Passing downs PPA-0.07+0.36Boston College
Passing downs success24.1%30.8%Boston College

Havoc detail — SMU defense: TFL 6, sacks 3, takeaways 0, breakups 1 on 65 snaps. Boston College defense: TFL 6, sacks 2, takeaways 0, breakups 1 on 63 snaps.

Drives

A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.

◀ SMUBoston College ▶
  • 11Drives10
  • 9Scoring opportunities6
  • 2.8Points per opportunity2.7
  • own 40Avg. starting field positionown 23

Recruiting

SMU's 2026 class: #32 · 225.82 points.

MeasureSMUBoston College
Talent composite 764.5
#31 of 138
660.0
#71 of 138
Transfer portal · 15 in, 26 out

Arrivals (15)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Yannick Smith WR East Carolina 4 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Theo Melin Ohrstrom TE Texas A&M 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Kendrick Raphael RB California 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Christian Davis DL Louisiana Tech 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Caden Marshall LB Bowling Green 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Ira Singleton EDGE South Florida 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Jarvis Lee CB South Florida 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Randy Pittman Jr. TE Florida State 3 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Trey Jackson TE Texas Tech 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Jalen Hale WR Alabama 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026

+5 more not shown (15 total).

Departures (26)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Omari Abor EDGE undecided 3 Immediate Dec 17, 2025
Braeden Flowers EDGE undecided 3 Immediate Jan 2, 2026
Adam Moore TE undecided 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Billy Walton III EDGE Oklahoma State 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Kyle Ferm LB Liberty 3 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
DJ Warner EDGE Washington State 3 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
Chris Johnson Jr. RB Clemson 3 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
King Large OT Missouri State 3 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Zakye Barker LB North Texas 3 Immediate Jan 15, 2026
Elijah Pratt S UAB 3 Immediate Jan 15, 2026

+16 more not shown (26 total).

2026 commits · 21
PlayerHometown★Rating
Christian Rhodes RB Dallas, TX 4 0.9318
Drew Evers IOL Flower Mound, TX 4 0.9196
Evan Goodwin OT Bauxite, AR 4 0.9038
Sam Utu IOL Orange, CA 4 0.8969
Aljour Miles II WR Kaufman, TX 4 0.8911
EJ Kelly RB Spring, TX 4 0.8901
Hudson Woods EDGE Spring Branch, TX 3 0.8856
X'Zavier Barnett ATH Yoakum, TX 3 0.8844
Jakai Anderson WR New Orleans, LA 3 0.8833
Kenneth Goodwin III LB Miami, FL 3 0.8833
Max Wright OT Melissa, TX 3 0.8833
Zack Turner TE Duncanville, TX 3 0.8811
Amontre Harris EDGE Humble, TX 3 0.8767
I'Zayah Young LB San Marcos, TX 3 0.8767
Dakota Dickson DL Danville, CA 3 0.8756

+6 more not shown (21 total).

Returning production

Share of last season's production returning for SMU in 2026.

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall56.9%219.857.8%
Passing96.6%144.499.3%
Receiving37.2%75.134.5%
Rushing0.9%0.330.3%

A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.